Top 10 People Who Became Famouse After Death

Top 10 People Who Became Famouse After Death

www.toptenz.net

Where there’s life, there’s death. Though a true statement, for some it seems that life and legacy continue on long after death. Many artists, poets, writers, and others have been able to continue to live on through their stories, theories, art, and ideas. Though not immortal, the works of certain people allow them to continue to be an important part of the world, despite no longer living.

The list below describes ten people, who after death, became famous and made a profound impact on society.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.toptenz.net

I wish to exemplify that monetary gain is almost directly related to exposure in regards to the masses. The basis of this thread is to show that the real value in art is in its reception of the said masses.

While the argument of illegitimate monetary gain can be made, the real question that remains is whether or not that monetary gain is made more profitable by the spread of knowledge between individuals or of corporations.

I do believe that this is the crux of the copyright ordeal that we are currently witnessing.

Is it more profitable to the person who manifested their own work to seek publicity on their own through the internet or those (especially corporations) who merely provide channels for the artist to reach the masses.

If more pfrofit can be gained through self-promotion then what should happen to the middle man?

I can say that, for myself I PVR the shows that I like and there fore bypass much of the advertising that keeps the the makers of a show from fulfilling their full monetary potential. Am I in the wrong?

I must say that I find there is a lack of testimony on behalf of artists. However, if an artist wishes to sign their rights over to a label then I agree that any corporation in contract with said artist has the right to sue for copyright infringement. After all, this is not an after-death contract. But what happens if there is an intermediary?

That being said, I would still love to hear from artists, regardless.

I for one believe that those who promote others work are simply feeding off the work of others and the internet is a threat to that system. I feel that, in today's society, businesses who's job is to advertise is slowly becoming obsolete as there are other avenues.

I would truly wish for more artists who have personal experiences with labels et.al. to present what they have learned and whether or not it is hurting them or the labels or both.

- AeonStorm -

www.toptenz.net
(visit the link for the full news article)

Interesting that Van Gogh is number one. That adds even more conspiracy to the mix - as his long thought suicide and severe mental fugue may have been been misinterpreted. The village where he died still has rumors saying that two teenage boys shot him and that he said he'd shot himself to keep them from having to pay the price and lose their futures over him.

One of my heroes.

After arriving back home, Van Gogh told his brother Theo that he had shot himself. Yet the bullet’s trajectory was “at a crazy angle,” the authors added, and the gun was held “at a distance from the body” that might have been farther than Van Gogh could have held the gun. In addition, historical accounts suggest that two teenage boys teased and tormented Van Gogh during the final years of his life, they said, and it’s possible that the boys shot him.

Source for quote.

Interesting thread.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


How much I have to learn! Thanks for the lesson in history, Heff.

Is this the first conspiracy in regards to an artist and his possible monetary worth? Or does that title belong to Michael D'ngelo?

I'm educated but there are many things I do not know.

-AS-

Lets draw themdrawastickman.com

reply to post by Hefficide


Do you have any response to my secondary post? I'm curious as to other people's thoughts.

Respect,

-AS-

reply to post by SarnholeOntarable


Surely you see a difference between... say Picasso and my lame attempt at drawing LOL.

reply to post by AeonStorm


If we're discussing monetary gains based upon postmortem intellectual property values? There are many contenders, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Shakespeare, even Thomas Malory could make the grade.

The above were all recognized and rewarded ( patronized ) during their lifetimes. Different from Van Gogh, Poe, Melville, etc.

Another interesting character on the list is Thoreau who not only died unsung, but was also the sort of person who might have been an ATS member, as he was very suspicious of and vocal about government.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


I am trying to express that even though these people became famous...they saw no hint of their true monetary worth and it wasn't untill their passing that an actual price was applied to their work.

What I find interesting is that their work only became valuable after their death. There is nothing wrong with that per say ... but it seems that the goal now is to accomplish the same through force while the artists is still alive.

My question is, is this purely due to labels? Or is the internet perhaps taking power away from labels and these companies are trying to do their best to hold onto their position of mass promoters in order to keep their jobs. In which case.... is this where all the copyright discourse is emerging from...

Perhaps I'm tired and I'm not able to get my point across clearly...

reply to post by AeonStorm


Postmortem fame, especially from an unknown artist, probably lay more in the prospect that death has created a very limited pool of work to exploit or enjoy. Take the case of Sublime. They were underground until the leader, Bradley Nowell died - and then they exploded onto the national scene.

This doesn't always work out. Kurt Cobain died and Nirvana went from "the" band to being almost forgotten in a very short period of time. Then again, everyone who fed from the Nirvana trough was already set for life anyway. So that might explain the lack of a desire to exploit the death.

As for my opinions on Copyright? Personally I think those rules are beyond Draconian right now - as the Internet blew apart the previous business model and the industry(ies) are fumbling around trying to figure out how to exploit the new market as efficiently as possible.

As a staff member, my position on it, here, of course is, the rules are the rules.

What actually worries me more than Copyright or DMCA issues currently is the apparent return to a limited access or bandwidth ISP model. Younger people have grown up in an unlimited Internet period. But some of us older folks remember the days of AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve, and can recall what it was like to have to pay a per minute fee. Today a $2,000.00 bill for Internet is dumbfounding. Twenty five years ago? It happened to a lot of people and was not an uncommon thing at all. Back then it was minutes - now it's coming back based upon bandwidth use. That is where the problems are going to happen IMO.

The fact that Copyright is being used as the excuse for throttling, excess bandwidth fees, etc. Is, IMO, the actual end game. Copyright? The convenient excuse.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Thanks for your insight, Heff. I know that this thread is not going to get much attention but it's more for myself and I hope others would find knowledge within it such as you're providing. I'm trying to make a legitimate argument against copyright laws as clear as possible.

I do know what you mean when you talk about the old days and the costs then. I started off with an Atari and programed games line by line through magazines. Oh wow.... what a pain it was when you lost hundreds of lines due to shortsightedness.

So you believe that copyright is is being used as a throttle? That's interesting because I can see that... But I still want to understand the correlation between the every-day artist and corporation in regards to copyright issues. Is it the artist that defends their work the most or the middle man?

reply to post by AeonStorm


In this day and age it's always the owners of the intellectual property. As far as I know, that is never the artist and is usually the artists representation or label... or publisher... or agent.

It's been a long time since I signed any recording contracts, but even in the early eighties any new artist wanting even creative control was very unlikely to get it. And as for the masters? Not a chance. Sure, you can own your lyrics, maybe even your own logo. But that's about all you'll get. That and the right to sell your own T shirts if your lawyer is smart enough to get you marketing rights.

Money is a funny thing. It's anti-gravity in practice. It always flows upward. As it does, people along the way grab a handful. But the bulk of it rises to the top. Like an upside down pyramid. If you want to see this, pick just about any record company that actually publishes on any scale - and then begin Googling. Chances are you'll find that they are a subsidiary of such and such a company, which is a subsidiary of that company, which is....

Before it's done you'll probably end up with the name "Time Warner", "Disney", or "Viacom" as the tip of that upside down pyramid.

Long story back around again... it's not the artists. For every artist getting rich? There are hundreds or thousands who are producing product and, if their lucky, making just enough to live, have a bit of fun, and continue their careers with.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Thanks Heff ... I understand what you are saying. It's a sad world though when an artists value ends upside down in a corporations pyramid.

I agree wholeheartedly with you assessment. Thanks again for the lesson.

-AS-

reply to post by AeonStorm


what about this guy?

Robert Leroy Johnson (May 8, 1911 – August 16, 1938) was an American blues singer and musician. His landmark recordings from 1936–37 display a combination of singing, guitar skills, and songwriting talent that has influenced later generations of musicians. Johnson's shadowy, poorly documented life and death at age 27 have given rise to much legend, including the Faustian myth that he sold his soul at a crossroads to achieve success. As an itinerant performer who played mostly on street corners, in juke joints, and at Saturday night dances, Johnson enjoyed little commercial success or public recognition in his lifetime. His records sold poorly during his lifetime, and it was only after the first reissue of his recordings on LP in 1961 that his work reached a wider audience. Johnson is now recognized as a master of the blues, particularly of the Mississippi Delta blues style. He is credited by many rock musicians as an important influence; Eric Clapton has called Johnson "the most important blues singer that ever lived."[1][2] Johnson was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as an "Early Influence" in their first induction ceremony in 1986.[3] In 2003, David Fricke ranked Johnson fifth in Rolling Stone's list of 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time.[4]

reply to post by DocHolidaze


Another one of my heroes!

Genius. Absolute genius.

~Heff